Mrs. A. Suganthi v. The DCIT, Circle-1, Salem

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mrs. A. Suganthi, is engaged in the business of job work of manufacturing silver leg chains and also derives rental income. She claimed to have made total cash deposits of Rs.44,80,000/- in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) after demonetization in her bank accounts. The Assessing Officer (AO) questioned the source and nature of these deposits. The assessee explained that Rs.37,80,000/- was from the realization of sundry advances/receivables of earlier years and Rs.7 lakhs was from the current year's income. Despite this explanation, the AO and the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (Ld.CIT(A)) did not accept it and made an addition of Rs.44,80,000/- under section 68 and 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee appealed against this order.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the cash deposits of Rs.44,80,000/- in SBNs were satisfactorily explained by the assessee?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Shakti Sales Corporation Vs ITO, Ward-27(3)(1), Mumbai

• PR & Co. vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Erode

• Sridharpur Co-Operative Bank Vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Burdwan

  Kolkata ‘C’ Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Shri Pandian Hari Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward 11(4), Chennai

• Dhaval Dinesh Shah vs Income Tax Officer Ward 42(1)(2), Mumbai

• Rajesh Kumar Dalmia Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed